tv Tonight From Washington CSPAN December 16, 2011 8:00pm-11:00pm EST
>> the former russian president took questions on the economy and the mas protests sparked by allegations of voter fraud in the recent elections and addressed the death of moammar gadhafi and criticized senator john mccain in response to the protest. he added that the former presidential candidate had gone crazy since his capture and torture in vietnam. >> translator: shall we
start? sure. good afternoon. thank you for coming. i think it will be correct if we start this program with a question about the elections which have caused a variety of society until today have not commented on the last few days worth of developments, but what is your personal attitude to the fact that the individual who do not tend to see themselves, the majority of them anyway, see as your opponents, yet they don't like the way the majorities treat them. >> the point of view in the country both in the economy and in the social area and in the political area are completely normal things. as long as everybody stays within the law, of course, and i count on it continuing to be
that way. i have seen on the television screen people, most of them tend to be young, active people with their own positions who have clearly and articulately expressed their position, and it makes me happy, and if this is the result of the putin regime, then it's very good. i don't see anything wrong here. once again, the most important thing is for all the actors and political forces to stay within the law. >> translator: here's a question regarding the subject from the internet, the elections to the state. caused traditional disagreement which ended with a protest enraged by what they thought were the authorities. do you think the elections were fair and the results were honest and fair? >> translator: well, as far as
falsification and as far as the fact they are not happy with the results of the elections, tell me something new. this has always been the case, always will be the case. this is what opposition exists for, lives for, it fights for powers and that is why it looks for any opportunity in order do approach our authorities and oust the incumbent authorities to accuse them of something to their mistakes, and on the whole, there's an absolute normal development. as far as the directions were objective and fair then from my perspective than i already said as much publicly, and my perspective of the results reflect the actual balance of power in the country and the fact the ruling party, united russia, has lost some of the ground. there's nothing unusual.
now, listen, we have been through what was a very difficult crisis period. look at what's happening in other countries. it's clear that it's made a negative impact on people on the standard of living that's dropped, and many have lost jobs, so for the opposition to recruit among the ranks and individuals who are unhappy with the current status quo, is, of course, now considerably easier than it used to be, but then, again, the fact that united russia has held on to its lead, that is a very good sign. as far as whether or not they were honest or dishonest, the opposition always points out that elections were not honest. always. it happens everywhere in all the countries. it is just a matter of how that is expressed and that in itself is a matter of political culture. as far as i'm concerned, it's clear to me that attacks against
the elections in this regard, the elections that have taken place are always secondary of nature. the primary goal, the primary target is the next election, the elections of the president of the russian federation, and to avoid any problems here, to minimize the opportunity to be able to point out that these elections and the future elections will be dishonest or may be dishonest in order to kick the ground from under the feet of those who seek to delegitimize the authority and the power in this country. i have a suggestion. you know, last year in the summer time when we had those fires, terrible fires, and in the central part of russia, i traveled to many of their affected regions in order to help people rebuild their housing, and we made what was a numpleg very unusual --
number of very unusual decisions, and they were unprecedented. no other country in the world had a program like that, and what we did was build the housing quickly, incoming, thanks to the fact that i asked for all the construction sites to be equipped with so-called web cams or video cameras to make it possible for me to come home or to the office at any point in time, quick, by computer mouse and look at the construction site. i said to the central committee had cameras, and we have 90,000-plus of those and work 24/7 day and night so the country sees everything. it's on the internet so everybody sees what is happening, to leave out the very matter of falsifications all together. [applause] i know that we here in the studio have individuals who are happy to carry on the subject of
elections, but, by the way, there is what i would like to say, i believe, and i asked that attention be paid to this. the opposition should be given an opportunity to monitor everything that happens at the polling stations. on a full scale, and it can be done using such web cameras. what also needs to be ensured is accordance with the law, the local electoral commissions remit all political -- represent all political forces that make up the parliament, but i'd lick to go to the polling and speak to those willing to vote, as well as for me as presidential candidate, please do not think or act by the larger act, that, yes, we'd vote for him, but they will do something there. i have to get groceries or go to the country house. no, nobody will do anything other than for you. it's only up to you. you have to make up your mind
and decide who will engage in foreign policy and represent the country internationally. who will secure, ensure domestic and external security? who will be dealing with social matters? who will be dealing with developing the economy? only you and nobody else. [applause] glt let us stay on the election -- >> translator: let us stay on the elections. i know there's people who want to ask questions about that, and we'll let him ask a question. chief of moscow, was on bulletin square as an observer. >> translator: i was there as an observer, but you talked about opposition, and believe me, it was not just the opposition who were in the square, and you're now answering to what opposition wants and seeks, but what will you respond to the newly frustrated over up
fairness and believe their votes were stolen. there was demands and asks and a search for fairness that's important. i'd like you to answer that, answer to those people, not the opposition. first, i said what i think about it, and i did say there were different people and -- there and happy i saw healthy dynamic, energetic individuals looking like they were intellectuals actively expressing their position. once again, if that's the result of the putin regime, i'm happy there's such people. as far as the procedure for the resolution, it's well-known and set forth in the law. in certain cases where the results have not been tap bylated, the commissions have the right to recount the votes, and on some occasions and in st. petersberg, that was what was done, but when the liege is
drawn, there's another way of settling such disputes. you take it to a court of law. of course, you have to proceed from the premise that our courts will act dynamically and be objective. regarding to developments on the square. there's a variety of points of view including that which is opposite to the one voiced, and we have here a work patron. >> translator: how are you. give the microphone to the veteran, it's not like her take it or something. it seems to me, and i will say it straight. in any house, no matter how good life is, there's always room for improvement. somebody's not happy about something, and these matters can
be resolved, and on this occasion speaking of the elections in the city, the city square had a demonstration to about 100 individuals. why so? the city's working. we at our plant are neck deep in work and already there is a number of orders placed with us for next year, and we work like we've never worked before during the soviet era, we used to build 20,000-21,000 railway cars, and now we're at 24,000. we have a big order for next year as well. people can see that their employment has a future, and they are happy. of course, there's those who are unhappy, and, especially with today's attitude to the individual. these -- these utility matters, something talked about for six months plus, and nothing is in order here, and people will get
two or three instructions to pay and there is fraud and these matters have to be dealt with, and those who are the culprits have to be held responsible. people believe in good life, and today there are different parties, but united by the same interests to have a good life. get rid of red tape so people will be appreciated and heard so that others will work for the people, so that people will not try to hide behind the mandates where there is local counsel, district counsel, regional counsel, or the state. there are people like that amongs us today, and attention needs to be paid very quickly to agriculture, not just lip service paid to it, but it has to be done so that our tourists will go to egypt and bring our russian potatoes, not bring their potatoes back to us from egypt. i'm speaking to all russians
right now. the motto is we should not invite trouble to russia. we have been through a lot of trouble. we don't need great revolutions. as of today, i'm a deputy of the state, and i will do what i can to descend fairness and honesty, and i think we can set things up in a way people will be happy and heard and all leaders work for the people starting with the prime minister and ending with the foreman. will you ask questions to the chairman of the government? not the chairman of the government. [applause] >> translator: well what i said can be translated into light with the transition of the government. it's not really a request, just one instruction. stamp out the red tape and disacception of the people. thank you. [applause] >> translator: as far as
agriculture, i'm sure we'll talk about that. i'm sure there will be questions about agriculture. during this conversation of ours today. as far as people bringing potatoes from egypt, i have not told anything like that. that sounds very exotic. egypt is one of the largest importers of our grain. in the past decades, it was close to unfathomable. we were net importers of grain, as you know, importing it from canada, u.s., and australia, but to date, we're the third largest exporter in the world of grain, and there has never been the case before, and, of course, this is the result of work and talent of our agricultural workers and last, but not least, through the support of the government, and this year we have -- we store the extra
potential, and another question, in downtown moscow, people wore white ribbons, and these ribbons seem to be something like a symbol of the future color revolution in russia. do you agree? >> translator: i have already said what i think about these developments on the whole, and it seems to me maybe we should get another subject that there are many other interesting subjects. >> we leave this now, the senate is gaveling in, straight to the floor of the u.s. senate. 2012 and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the joint resolution be read three times, agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate, any statements related to this measure be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i suggest the absence of a quorum.
the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask we proceed to a period of morning business with senators allowed to speak up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow morning, saturday, december 17, the senate proceed to consideration of calendar number 257, h.r. 360, that the majority leader be recognized to offer a reid-mcconnell substitute amendment agreed to by both leaders.
a two-month extension of the payroll tax reduction, doc fix, unemployment insurance. following reporting of the amendment, the senate proceed to vote in relation to the substitute, that there be no amendments in order to the substitute or the bill prior to the vote, that the amendment be subject to a 60-vote threshold. that if the substitute amendment is agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, the reid-mcconnell substitute amendment is not agreed to, the majority leader be recognized upon disposition of h.r. 3630, the senate proceed to the consideration of the conference report with respect to h.r. 2055, that there be 15 minutes of debate, five minutes each for senators inouye, cochran and mccain. that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the senate -- i'm sorry. the use or yielding back of that time, the conference report be temporarily set aside and notwithstanding the lack and receipt of the papers from the house with respect to h.r. 3672, the senate proceed to the consideration of -- consideration en bloc of the following awms: h.r h.r. 3672, a
bill regarding disaster funding, h. con. res. 94, a correcting resolution to provide offsets for emergency disaster funding, that there be no amendments in order to the bill, the concurrent resolution prior to the votes in relation to those measures. that following the reporting of the bill and the concurrent resolution, the senate proceed to votes on the measures in the following order -- passage of h.r. 3672, adoption of h. con. res. 94, and adoption of the conference report to accompany h.r. 2055, the omnibus appropriations bill. that there be two minutes equally divided prior to each vote, that each of those votes be subject to 60-vote affirmative vote threshold, that no motions or points of order be in order prior to the votes other than points of order, the application motions to waive, further, the cloture motion with respect to the motion to proceed to h.r. 3630, be vitiated. finally, the house be notified of the senate's action following the votes and that be done immediately. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that from
friday, december 16 through monday, january 23 of next year, the majority leader be recognized to sign duly enrolled bills and joint resolutions. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, the senate adjourn until 9:00 a.m. saturday, december 17. that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following any leader remarks, the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 257, h.r. 3630, the payroll bill that we've talked about, as provided under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: senators should expect a series of four roll call votes tomorrow morning beginning at 9:00 a.m. in relation to tw two-month extension of the payroll tax, unemployment insurance, and doc fix, disaster aid and the omnibus appropriations conference repo report. if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until
>> according to the hill newspaper and others, leaders in the house agreed on a two month extension of the social security payroll tax holiday, and that bill freezes scheduled payments in medicare until march, and it would extend unemployment insurance. house speaker john boehner has to take it over with the gop members of the gorches before signing up, but it includes the keystone pipeline project. that from the hill newspaper. bringing you live coverage again tomorrow morning at 9 a.m. eastern time here on c-span2.
columnist for vanity fair. he's the author of over a dozen books. his most recent is the memoir, "hitch 22", and last summer, he was diagnosed with cancer. he joins us from his home in northwest washington, d.c.. >> host: i just checked and interviewed you 20 times since 1982, and this is one of the hardest. >> well, because you have not been well. >> guest: not very, no. >> host: what's the current status of your cancer? >> guest: i have a tumor in my esophagus, spread to my lymph nodes and part of my lung, and it's stage vi and the thing to note about stage vi is there is no stage v, so that concentrates the mind a bit, but i have
wonderful oncologists with me, and we on the verge of new treatments. the chemotherapy holding as it be. my voice is a bit husky today, i apologize, but that's the situation. i have to practice staying alive and preparing to die at the same time, which as my memoir says is actually what one has to do all the time. as a matter of fact, i mean, you're never more than a breath away, but it is a bit more vivid to me now, sort of doctors in the morning and lawyers in the afternoon. >> host: why did you decide to take us through the journey? >> guest: well, i was wondering whether i wanted to or not, and didn't want to make a parade of my condition, but i was very intelligently pressed to do it by my vanity fair, and
tried to do it in a way it was not a parade of my feelings or sort of yellow ribbon type journalism, and i've been told that some people have been coveted by a little bit, identified to it by some degree. if you have a lemon, make lemonade is the other explanation, better than stairing at the -- staring at the wall. it is a great subject. everybody has to do this at one point or another, either survive or die of something like this, and it's one thing one is certainly born to do, and so as an extension of the memoir i published when i was hit with it, i thought, well, i shoilt keep up the narrative because this is very much a part of my life. >> host: how's your life -- >> guest: i should add because of the experimental treatments, i've had any genome sequenced.
i'm able to write about exciting now developments in the field about oncology which i hope will be available to more people. it's a tan tillizing to have cancer for me, someone of my age, because there's treatments i can see just out of my reach which is both encouraging and annoying, and there's others just within it. my constitution is good, my vital signs are excellent, liver, blood pressure, excellent, unjustly so in my mind. if i can hang on, there's quite a few expedients i intend to try. >> host: you just had your gull bladder out. that had nothing to do with -- >> i had a bad een society. -- episode. i crashed. i had a melt down in my bone marrow that can happen with
chemotherapy. a crisis with white and red blood cells and my gull bladder went awry, and i've now lost that and gained blood transfusions so i'm back. hanging on. >> host: what has this done to the old head >>? >> guest: the worst of the treatments is chemobrain in the trade where you feel fogged in the head and you barely want to read and write. that terrified me very much. i thought if i can't do that, i've gone in a little sense, and i wouldn't have a reason to live. i don't want to give into dispair, but turns out the chemobrain is transitory. i suffer from exhaustion, but i'm lucid, at least in my own opinion. i could write a column today if
i was lucky, had strong coffee. i can certainly read, and i'm conversing, but if anything was to spread in that direction, then i would feel that's the end. >> host: what has been the reaction from other people to your condition? you know a top of people. >> guest: yeah. i will say known to quite a lot of people now, and because i had to cancel a lavish book tour as it was beginning back in the summer, i couldn't just do a fade and go into treatment. i had to make a statement like i was a public figure about why i couldn't keep appointments. i had to say something. it became overnight a news item. i guess it must have been a slow week, and i imagined partly because of my opinions about the supernatural and religious life
and got attention because people thought surely now is the time for the consideration, withdraw from the principles of the lifetime, make my peace with some church or other, and there's public talk about that, a national day of prayer for me, which i took kindly. i thought it was a suggestive thought, and that was prayer in my favor. there were other people who lobbied the devine in the opposite direction, presuming to instruct him in either is presumption issue, but people can't seem to help that. i had an amazing number of letters from people. i still get them. handwritten ones to my house as well as e-mails to my office in new york. saying the nicest things, most of them, not all, and trying to assure me in their minds my life was not a waste of time even if it ends prematurely. i'm 62 in april if i make it
that far, and that's encouraging. i learned something from it that are important, already known to me, but i really know it now. never put off writing a letter to someone in disstress. it's always very much appreciated, and i'm not asking for more people to write to me, but if they have someone known to them, have not got around to them yet, i urge them to do it. it's a terrific help to me, i must say, i'm not particularly a vulnerable person, but this has been moving for me and confirming. >> host: has any of your, at least professional enemies come to you during this time? if they have, what do they say to you? >> guest: well, prosksal enemies, -- professional enemies, or rivals, those taking the opposite view, all 6 them have been very nice. there's been newspaper columns written about me in the "new
york times" by david brooks, a generous column, and there was an editorial in the times of london. i felt i was reading my o o obituaries because i was still alive. it's nice, but the creepy feeling of it being premature as well. i don't know how many personal enemies i have. people just didn't like me in other words, or whose nerves i get, but a number of people who wrote to me saying i hope i suffer now and then forever after i've died is, i'd say small. >> host: go back for a moment because it was quite a series of events. i mean i have your memoir in my hands if which -- >> guest: so should everybody. >> host: ye. the first seven pages were about
death. any premonition at all? >> guest: no, but it is weird, isn't it? i had a free gift from the national portrait gallery in london, publishing a magazine for its writers, and there was an exhibition of a friend of mine, photographs that included me, and because one of the people featured had died while the catalog was going to press, they put hastily late in print, but it was next to my name. it views the expression, concentrate the mind. i think they thought i was going to sue, and they've been withdrawn, only a few got out, and i said, no, no, send me as much as you've got because it makes a wonderful mini introduction into my memo that i had nearly finished then. it's called a prologue of
premonition, a rem story. i had no idea then, no. >> host: you went on the daily show right at the time you found out. >> i went on that show the day i was diagnosed, yeah. >> did you know it at the time? >> yeah, i was told in the morning. i woke up in new york feeling ill, was taken to hospital, and they said it's not your heart. you can discharge yourself if you want, though. we recommend you stay for observation. whatever you do, the next stop is an oncologist. there's clearly a tumor in your esophagus, but it's spread. i decided to discharge myself because i wanted to do the stewart show and that evening, a big event of the new york ymca,
the 92nd street, and i managed to do them without showing ill-effects, but i just had the sentence read to me. >> host: let's watch a little bit of the stewart show so people can see. when they see this, you know that you've got a real problem. let's watch. >> guest: yes, i've never seen it. >> >> read the o obituaries every day to ward off depression. >> i was going to say. >> and i say this it concentrated my mind. here's the sentence, one day it will be true, but for now, screw you, i'm not late, mate. that unsealed the memory of it, and it also, of course; it dealt with the usual argument you get from people, a comment, is it soon? i said, well, maybe, but no choice of leaving it too late now, is it? >> not really. people shouldn't decide for you.
when you turn 60, i'm very impressed someone who has clearly from the stories in your book lived. you lived it. you have not taken it easy on this model body. >> no. >> but yet you don't look like [bleep] and you should. i don't know, it's somewhat upsetting. >> crying inside, and b, there's an oil painting up in my attic that is distinctly seedy. >> it's starting to get that. >> host: actually, as i saw you on the show, you look like you had a sense of humor, fairly normal, but what was your head telling you as you walked out there? >> guest: well, i just buried the thought for what it took to do the show, and later on stage event, which also went very well. it was only at the dinner after that i began to feel i couldn't
carry on anymore, but i just got through it. i don't think anyone noticed, but i was at every opportunity between the events i was violencely sick, throwing up very powerfully. >> host: had you had any indication at all that something was going wrong? >> nothing but very, very good annual check up reports from my doctors on all fronts. >> host: your father died of e esophagus cancer. >> he did at the age of 79. >> host: had that penetrated -- >> guest: i mention it in the book, and i would have written that before i found out myself, but, no. i suppose because i smoked very heavily. i was afraid it was getting in the lung. i seemed to live a charmed life, and the thing with esophagus cancer is you can have it for awhile and hard to detect unless you're looking for it. you're likely to miss it, and it
doesn't usually present, as they say, until it's too late. by the time i went to the doctor for by op sigh, it was easy to do because you could feel it in my neck. not a good sign. >> host: what treatment did you begin? >> guest: treatment of chemotherapy which then made me lose my hair. it's growing back with the new chemical i'm trying. slightly. maybe losing a lot of weight and very tired, but not too bad per spentively. it's measurely reduced. >> host: where was this done? >> bethesda. >> host: beginning when? >> guest: july. >> host: ending when? >> guest: still going on. thanks to dr. francis colin, national institute of health, the national cancer institute,
who did the human genome project brought it in as you know, under time and budget, and we met because we're opposite side of the religion debate, and we became friends that way. he's a very convinced christian, and we've become friendly debaters, and he's taking a kindly interest in my case, and he's helped me have my genomes sequenced and look for a more perfect identifiable match for any mutation they can find that's peculiar to me to be targeted by a special drug, and so today is friday, the 14th. i don't know when this will be shown, but on monday, i'm going in, i hope to try that if i'm strong enough, if my bone marrow's recovered enough, and that involves 6 million -- no excuse me, 6 billion dna matches of my tumor set against 6
billion dna matches of my blood to look for something that was individually mutated that was not in my genes. absolutely extraordinary what can be done now. i 4 to go to st. louis to do it because that's where the project is for finding out how the genome can be applied to individuals predictments in medicine. it'll be common place soon. there's a terrible lack of funding as you perhaps know. i'll say a word about this now so people can write their congressman. in the most recent budget, a terrible collapse of funding to the nih, and a stupid extent limiting the uses of embryonic cells to be used for these thing, and i was not before this, but i would like to become more than i am an advocate for overcoming these pseudoscientific obstacles in medical research. >> host: you get your
chemotreatment at nih? >> guest: no, i had various tests there, but i just go to my regular oncologist, dr. smith, in bethesda who consults over the interpret with like-minded physicians, and they work and adjust it every few weeks. >> host: in the vanity fair december issue, you wrote about a woman who came up to you at a -- when you were signing books. she starts off by saying -- tell what happened. >> guest: this is my campaign to have a book of cancer etiquette published, which i might be, signing books in new york after debate about islam. it's a long line. women at the front comes towards me, doesn't even have the book
for me to sign, has not bought one, and says very real. said nice to say so. she said my cousin had cancer. i said, oh, sorry. she said, in the liver. i said that's awful. she said, he got better. i said, oh, good. but he got worse again. i said, oh, i'm sorry. she said, of course, he was a homosexual. i was not going to say, of course, and i knew his friends and family abandoned him, died alone in great pain, agony, incontinence, pierces pain, humiliation, indescribable horror. i said, oh, i was beginning to run out of things to say, but expressed consideration with that, and then she said so i just wanted you to know i know exactly what you're going through. i've been left with that -- didn't buy a book, and i thought, now would she treated me like that if i was well?
not the passive, and to be there and look at it in the eye and the do something when it comes for me. why? what does that mean anyway? >> guest: it was part of life, so i'd like to be conscious. this is what i thought then. and ideally, i would like to be making a speech perhaps or making laws or i don't know, sitting with friends. or if i had more notice, conceivably to try a socratic terminus, where people come around and you try and make a decent farewell. as i forced to reconsider now because if this cancer doesn't go into remission, it's a very unpleasant way to die. a quite probable we have doing it is to choke in your own, for
example. it can be perceived by all kinds of implications. so does not feature a coin to decide and reconciled to that is part of life. it is that the sentence includes to be tortured for a bit before you die. and so, i now feel a slight bravado. i would still, if possible, like to be awake and looking at people and if i'm lucky, talking to them. i'm not so sure i will insist on it. in ip as to as well to sort of slip away in a narcotic stupor. at the very old-fashioned thing to say. as i say, it's part of life. i want to get as much out of it as they can. c-span: how much in the spirit of the talked about this thing with your wife?
>> guest: well, a lot because she has been a great today. she does things i don't like to do. going on the internet and the connect receivable treatments and looking for new doctors and things like that. so we talked a lot about that, about losing about what happened if i was gone. actually, we barely talk about that. my determination is that i am not going to die. i'm not going to die of it now. i mai tai with it, that is a possibility. and i've got to do everything i can to be an experimental subject for other treatments if they don't work for me. i feel that would be -- i say in the book, i quote the great american, anti-youth done something for humanity, you should eat ashamed to die.
that would be doing something for humanity. even if it uncaused per attack came, i'd be willing to do it. c-span: and the metal politics, a couple of weeks ago you debated tony blair in toronto. >> guest: i carried not debating this and other questions. c-span: we covered it and i want to run a clip of you making some points. he is sitting on the stage there with you. let's watch that and i will come back. >> as long as you don't want your religion taught in school comic event in any of these things, you are fine by me. i would prefer -- [applause] i would prefer not event to know what it is that you do. [laughter] in fact, if e4 said, i will
consider it a breach. have your own bloody christmas. do your slaughtering if possible and don't mutilate the of your children. [laughter] because they now are afraid to get some law. so don't you think that pluralistic of me? i think it is. why is it a bit code for my part? bias that? has never been honored by the other side? of course not. it's a mystery to me and i'll share with you. if i believed there was a savior, it would be a prophet sent by a guy do poorly in mind and love me and one of the best for me. if i believed that in that i possess the means of grace in the hope of glory, i think -- i don't know. i think i might be happy. why doesn't it make them happy?
[laughter] don't you think it's a perfectly decent question? why does the night because they would be if you believed it too. and why is that? that's because that's what their holy books tell them. [applause] c-span: why did she do that to be? what actually? >> guest: it was at thanksgiving. c-span: what condition where human? >> guest: i had a lot of notice of the event, so i would come at the end when i'm usually much stronger. it would've been very irresponsible. it's a huge event, a lot of trouble and money went into it, fixing it up and getting security on all of this. so i never like to counsel anybody -- cancel on anybody. i was feeling very tired, but physically alright and mentally mentally quite a lawyer.
and it was the first time player had a public debate on any subject. >> host: a c-span: you wrote about it in "vanity fair." you tell us your position in his position. >> guest: i debate with rich people all the time. rabbi shmuela, all kinds of people. blair is of course a new convert to catholicism. so i wanted to question him a bit about that. and then we could only do one thing at a time usually on these debates. the points i wanted him to conceive was that the evil is that people like myself speak about when we talk about religion, he would always -- isco figures that i was acknowledged that this was not in the name of religion. i say you must drop that. there is scriptural warrant an authority very clearly in the holy books, which is supposed to be the word of god.
so it is a copout to use it and say in the name out. you can't just say it's a parody. you have to face the responsibility. while in fact, when they're asked by one questioner to say would have been the strongest point made by the affair, he said that he agreed that i was right, that the problem is there is scriptural authority for cruelty and stupidity. so that is my best memory. i opened with a quotation from him and his beatification he just recommended and support it, a very wicked in my view quotation. and then i wanted to know whether the catholic church was the one true judge. it was quite stage. he didn't, to fight me on that. he could not have told me anything he said.
he could have been a very weak sort of christian socialist liberal, basically says christianity is okay because it makes people do good works and give money to charity, which no one denies it's true, but has nothing to suit the relevance or the truth of the matter. so, the need for mandatory sympathize and who i've known quite a long time. so it was an unusually interesting about. excuse me. sorry, brian. i'll just have a sip here. c-span: uni -- the first interview ever conducted with u.s. on november 7, 1983. and i want to just run -- it is
a minute 20 seconds and i will talk about this. >> when journalists lose their credibility, i think in this country journalists have lost their credibility based upon their past work. the american people are speaking out now. and i just feel that without a type of checks and balances or the journalists, they are doing exactly what this time it did here. they are put in a foreign newsagent over to the country. report all the faults, but don't take it deep enough luck at the positive aspects of what a free press really is. >> i'm getting fed up with this kind of question actually. 30 miles from philadelphia as you are, how do you presume to know the american people are speaking up? to the extent you do know or can speak for them you can only know it through reading the free press and watching the free tv.
the truth is our reporting the fact that they are unpopular with the administration in the car with which david began says he admits it is true that public opinion is probably a great insight on this one. but if you want your press retreated as the british treated their press, you are going to end up not knowing pretty much about what's going on. if that is what you want to read the papers, they do not prevent me or anyone else reading. c-span: you can see how times have changed in that clip. there you are on i sat smoking. >> guest: yes. it's incredible now when i see that shadows announcing the president in 63. the whole studio looks like astro stretching as far as the eye can see. c-span: i also appreciate you calling me david. it's very humbling.
anyway -- [inaudible] it is fun to see for both of us go back at that time. but in those days, there is a lot of bravado about smoking and drinking. and for the first book notes we did, i went with you to a bar. and you had your computer and a glass of some and a cigarette. >> guest: i used to write my columns at timberlake's bar. >> host: do everything all this would've happened without that. did your father smelt? >> guest: my father was a pipe smoker and reasonably consistent drinker, too. and i can't but think that is what contributed to it. we didn't learn much from his death, my brother and i., because he was diagnosed and died almost right away. we didn't find out much.
i know it was lower down than were minus and probably inoperable. but he wasn't a teaching moment. c-span: by the way, it's yours inoperable? >> guest: yeah, you can't be cut out. it is too near my lungs and heart to be radiated. so it has to be chemo and/or targeted gene therapy. c-span: over those years when your smoking -- >> guest: to answer your question, ellison and there is a risk and i decided to take it the cause whether it's an illusion or not, i don't think it is. it helps my concentration. it stopped me being bored, stuck to their people being boring to some extent. he would keep me awake. these me to go on longer and have longer conversations and enhance the moment. if i was asked what i do it
again, the answer is probably yes. i would quit earlier possibly hoping to get away with the whole thing. easy for me to say. not nice for my children to hear. sounds irresponsible if i say i would do that again to you. at the truth is there would be hypocritical for me to say i'd never touch the stuff that i've known because i did know. everyone knows. and i decided a love life is a wager. i am going to reach her bit. and i can't make it come out any other way. it's strange. i almost don't even regret it, though i should because it's just impossible for me to picture life without it, wind and other things feeling the company. in keeping the reading and traveling and energizing me. it worked. they really did. c-span: went over the years have or do you appear to use that
word with him once in your writing. >> guest: well, it is a vice of course. it's actually one of the deadliest sense. boredom is the feeling that nothing is interesting. i am too prone to it. i get easily tired of -- i don't know, committee meetings -- were waiting in line. i am a very, very impatient person. >> so, i'm very happy by myself in that way. if i've got an after reading something to write about. and they did as article ii adnan hajj, not to dole it. but it has been a formula. c-span: during this time of your
illness, how would you pass the time? have you had a lot of pain? >> guest: especially before i found out it was the gallbladder and not the side effects, i was becoming worried that i was overdoing the painkillers. it should've been the other way around. i looked at the doctors that i living from hill to pill. they certainly should be taken as much morphine or codeine. i was beginning to feel woozy. but i would like to think that the gallbladder was sent of course. because before that the pain had not been quite an acute. it became unbearable. c-span: s. are talking, how it is a good sugar butter out? future have the laparoscopic? >> guest: yes, it is over very quickly once they found it. >> you feel better adages on this? >> guest: not yet.
the anesthetic takes a while to wear off. at least it hasn't me, given how weak i was already. much weight i've lost and how little food i've been taking. i couldn't have done this yesterday, for example. absolutely not. i could hardly get out of bed. c-span: about 30 some years ago, 36 years ago, a man named stewart all sides, columnist for "newsweek" had leukemia. the aml difficult leukemia and wrote about it. have you gone back and looked at any of his comments? and he told the story. i think he might've had a bone marrow transplant. i can't remember for sure. but i remember i was glued to it and it took us all the way through his process. how much more are we going to hear from you about your situation? >> guest: i hope alive. i don't say that just for my own
sake. >> host: whippings are you thinking about telling us about? >> guest: domain thing is to emphasize the airing innovation and the meds coming available based on our new knowledge of our genetic makeup. and so, so far as these treatments are applicable to me, which some of them are, i am hoping to write in some detail and alert people to the possibilities that they may not yet know about that exists, even for quite hard cases, quite advanced cases. c-span: any thoughts of writing a book? >> guest: yes, it was both about facing death and about the struggle for life. and how one motivation apart from the obvious ones is precisely to see if i can participate in pushing those boundaries back.
and in scientific knowledge. >> host: have you lost interest in certain things in the world? not at all? and as you sit here today, what would be your number one interest of things going on in the world? right now? >> guest: well, looking at today's paper, which is the first thing i do every day still, i suppose it would have to be one person or another with islamic jihad. in particular, the appallingly serious news the last few weeks, where the whole thread needs to be amped up and away we have a quite internalized, were the chief minister of the country's most important state is murdered in cold blood by his bodyguard
on the grounds that he opposes an existing blasphemy lawyer. not even that he has committed blasphemy. it is entitled to kill him and the endorsement all over the authorities. it used to be bad enough of convention by a court. you could face a death sentence has she been through a jury and appeals process. bad enough in all conscience, but warranted by the corrupt few can. but now, permission to anybody to appoint himself and execution on the spot and be the agent of the religion and i may like. and we invest ourselves
completely in the idea that there are moderates to be found if we can pay them. i don't think there is a printer, especially if we appear to be the patrons. we are totally fooling ourselves. >> host: at c-span: what about the process of having to face this on this? u.n. off on some substance there and some people just give all that up when they're faced with this kind of situation. what is changed? what about this process surprised you? >> guest: my internal process? c-span: becoming ill, stage four esophageal cancer. are you surprised about any of this in the last six months because you obviously thought about it. you rose seven pages about death? >> guest: yes, a memoir of a person who just passed 60 has to
face. i had to pass that much of the readers. it hasn't been all that surprising. it is a commonplace thing. i mean, i wrote this summer. i don't sit around asking myself why me here and if i did i wouldn't even say why not. it's a commonplace thing. my age and previous habits is almost laughably predict will. they are interesting thing about it as it's possible amenability to treatments unknown until very recently that the outcome of brilliant work i diverted people, some of whom i'm very lucky to count as friends. c-span: you know, there are many examples we hear from friends and people who we've known over the years worried that her will
say some very straight forward and crude things that make life very uncomfortable. i remember there is a reporter in midtown who worked at the "washington post" and told me one day, he's no longer with us, the doctor called after he had tests inside as well? you got the big c. i mean, i couldn't believe he actually -- that have been. the reason i bring this up -- >> guest: that is a bit crass. c-span: bookmarks that you get the medical profession and they given you hope something can be? >> guest: they've given me a margin that it can be, and they haven't pronounced him a chance is a must have asked them, which i decided not to do a first until it occurred to me it would be very useful for accounting purposes to have a rough idea because one has to plan for one's loved ones. i thought for actuarial reasons
i'd like to have a guess. they don't like being asked because they don't really know. and the best answer i got was the following: if you take a thousand people who were myself and my age in my state of health, my gender i think, a thousand of us today, half of us would be dead in a year. of the remaining half, those who might hope to live more than a year and of that number, would live for a considerable number of years. they can't do that now. i was from a very senior person at the nih was expecting the question. c-span: what is your reaction to people like me who come to your part, want to sit and talk to you. you know why we are here. we want to hear this story. you've had a bench here. are you surprised at that? >> guest: a little bit. yes, i was.
but a lot of it i know has been to do with my stance on religion and a very large number of people have asked me, doesn't it change your attitude to the eternal, supernatural and so forth. i said i really don't see why it should. i've never thought of it is a particularly searching question. i spent a lot of my life deciding that there isn't any redemption, that there is no salvation, that there is no afterlife, there is no supervising boss. if i was to tell you now i've got a malignancy in my esophagus, that changes everything, you would think i hope it did mean effect had been on my i.q. so i've enjoyed taking part in that argument.
and there's a certain ghoulish even about the nice people who have been praying for me because they are not prayed for my recovery. they're praying for my reconciliation with religion. and i proposed a trade off the other day. i set up a ui, what if we secularists stops going and asking if people are religious when they are extremists and save blood, white arches at the last few days as a free person. you'll feel much better. all the nonsense they cut you, you can still have every chance to give it out. experience the life of a freethinking art time this person. don't believe in the person. they didn't even welcome it. and of course we don't do that. it seems to be considered to write about most everybody to do it the other way around. i don't resign at all because i like every opportunity for the
argument. a lot of it has been to do at that. i don't flatter myself as a public figure. i rate all of that highly. c-span: of the book we did in 93 is a short clip. our tournaments and get your reaction to it. >> for a lot of people their first love they will always remember. from it's always been the first day. ii think the hatred provides often a terrific way of getting out of bed in the morning to keep you going. it can be if you don't let it get out of hand counteracted writing. in this country where people like to be nonjudgmental when they can be, which translate unholy man, there's bubble reputations floating around that one would be doing one's job if one didn't get such a. c-span: isn't still a good idea to hate people? >> guest: it is still not
avoidable. i think the question is how to, if you like, and turn it to its advantage. one of the things i don't like about christianity is the idea of compulsory in the. people pretending to have more than they do. also since it is coupled with the injunction to love every chance of that is curdling. there's something very honest by contrasting findings on lately and terrible. someone like henry kissinger, for example. it is a bit like alcohol if he lied. it's a good servant, but a bad master. i have a completely cold hatred and contempt for henry kissinger. it doesn't waste much of my time. enables me to penetrate the fog of reputation in which he has shouted increasing. it doesn't keep me awake at
night, poison me or fill me with bio, but i cannot pretend it is just a matter of political disagreement. there is such a thing as evil in the world and sometimes personified. and i think one is under no obligation to be ambivalent. c-span: have you changed your mind at all about mother teresa? >> guest: what would change my mind about her? i couldn't hate her because in one way she was a political figure, but i detest the influence that she had to make until you buy in a sentence if you want. the very reason that she is so celebrated, this apparent turn for the poor, the poorest of the poor are it is a certain keyer that goes onto the name to the empowerment of women. the works everywhere. bingo, bolivia, you name it. give them some control over their reproductive cycle in the
animal routine and the level of poverty will decline sharply. it's never been known to fail. it's a consistent fighting. just for an example, in the military you spend your entire life opposing all forms of birth control, comparing them to abortion. directly in her nobel prize speech, that was the main piece in the world who is a fanatic or things. that basically is, that list of reputation for preachiness is. but one can add the friendship was worse, people like charles keating who took stolen money and refused when the court asked to return it, took money from the dictatorship in haiti which treated aporia takes and less in
return gave them divine sanction. it goes on, but will affect was entirely retrograde. they never wrote one story about it until i wrote my critique. my book and a five or six other direct accusations backed up with that in that book has been reviewed by every newspaper in the world, including all the richest press. no one has ever pointed it out to secular. not one. if half of what i say is true, none of it is commonly true. but i'm used to this now. people need every now and then a complete solution and this is one. c-span: what would you do if henry kissinger decided to call you and try to bury the hatchet after all these years? >> guest: it would be extremely interesting. one of the reasons i detest it is a sort of know that couldn't have been. he wouldn't agree when i was writing a book about him to have questions submitted in writing, let alone to meet me.
he estimated a condition when he appears on television programs that he not be asked about the book. i know this from producers, several of them. he made a condition of his national press club that i don't think they should agree he be asked about the book. never mind his attitude to make, there's no reason to like me, but it would've pretended who is this guy hitchins? the more important, if you think of the things he's been having found out i passed out, lying about vietnam, lying about chile, bangladesh, the deaths of so many people need to say, severity of himself and his criminal prisons, we have already mcnamara, others, william colby, who in their books and memoirs try to make some kind of restitution. they said this is pretty bad policy wizard is expected at the time that it was bad, maybe worse. and we are sort of sorry.
we actually have evidence we feel we should share with you. disclosures you should have had at the time. kissinger has never said a word of self-criticism. not one. and he gets very petulant and angry spoiled and ugly when he is criticized. so as these as any other context, can agency is a remote one. but he was to to try it, i'd be fascinated to mean of course. righto we don't have much time. >> guest: i do say that. i'll be the judge of that. c-spanif you knew there was a certain amount of time left. i have no idea. six months, a year, anything that you want to do? has he gone through that process? >> guest: yes, but they don't tell you. that's the other reason they don't like being asked. you probably remember stephen
silas, the late congressman, if you're interesting man had the same thing as me. died recently. but before he died, he had about four or five cancer for years. he'd done a lot of traveling, kept up his human rights and then he got word that it was back and probably that was said and he made fairly short work of dying. this was a few weeks ago. that is what i need to know. i mean, the great last to me is the inability to travel. i got to toronto for thanksgiving. i wasn't that hard. i've been to california. with a private plane. kindly it was sent to me to use speaking in montana. ivana got to see that little bit one which i though was wanted to. and the wonderful national park. so not only got three american states and visited terry c-span: which one? desk or the dakotas and nebraska. i did all the others plus puerto
rico. c-span: and a plan to go back to your home country? >> guest: it is sentimental and outcome of the someone said to me randomly pick a day, i realized i was wise. they can't comprehend the idea of not going back at least once. but i couldn't do it now. it have to be told is that what they call a chemo holiday. c-span: we are out of town and the best way to and did i say is i'll see you in a couple years we do it again. >> guest: it is brightness and i? [laughter] >> for a copy of this program, call 1-877-662-7726. for free transcripts were to give us your comments about this program, visit us at q&a.org.
q&a programs are also available at c-span podcasts. >> author christopher hitchens died thursday. he was 62. news. >> i awoke this morning to unfortunate news. a friend of mine and one of the world's most brilliant writershs and intellects, christopher hitchens passed away yesterday.e christopher hitchens was a brilliant man who was a writer o and a provocateur. he may not have agreed with him. you may not agree with them, i think everybody knew that christopher hitchens is well ersed on the subject in which he spoke and could express it in
a way unlike any other. kdon't think there was a more erudite, knowledgeableno friendual on the face of this earth. he's left us. to me he was a good friend. he made my visit to washington here are easier. to his friends he was a loyal,go gracious and fun. to his foes, he was a feared lu for , he feared foe. the world was lucky for a speedy and i was lucky for my life intersecting the case. the world shall miss him, a lif well lived. rest in peace my friend. thank you, mr. speaker. >> i just heard over this past several hours of the passing of a good friend of mine who is one hed thereatest sas and lyricists of my time. when i heard the news ofitchens' christopher hitchens passing, i s was strapped with what he
dedicated antipatriotic individual he was.s. i suspect that he would've disagreed with my friend on thei issue of dealing with radical islam, but it is one of the things that brought the two of us together. he and i over the last decade plus has spent a great deal of time talking about that another issues.ional policy but if one looks at the peace comedy series that he wrote in "vanity fair" as he was diagnosed with cancer, they are very, very powerful and again,hs christopher hitchens and i didn't agree on every issue, but i always enjoyed the exchanges in the time i was able to spendn with him and i of course have been fascinated by his works. i think the world is a betterand place for christopher hitchens having lived and obviously, we are saddened by his passing. and
i want to say to his wife and daughters that our thoughts -- i r, comes to christopher because he was a very committed atheist, but i will say that our thoughts and since we have been, our prayers are with the members ofa rks, becauens family. and to say that his works, because he was such a great writer, will continue for years and years to come to fascinated and intrigued and create theectl kind of intellectual curiosity that is necessary.the so i would just like to save saddened by the passing of my friendop christopher hitchens aa certainly have had my life improved and battered by his having lived. i think my friend for yielding. >> author christopher hitchens died thursday of nibbling away badly this half ago cancer.
was 62. >> today the foreign affairs committee and terrorism, non-proliferation and trade examine the impact of energy companies searching for sources and more stable areas in countries such as canada. the main focus was the keystone xl proposal delay. one energy expert who testified to the u.s. can't afford not to capitalize on canada's oil sands from economic and energy standpoint. this is an hour and 10 minutes. >> this hearing in the subcommittee will come to order. the title of this hearing as changing any energy markets and u.s. national security. energy has become a national security issue here in the united states. one of the realities that we have to explore is the impact that energy has on so much of
the trade issues, terrorism issues, even the non-proliferation issues. all of these are in the orbit of irresponsibility of the subcommittee. this week, this house passed sanctions in iran's energy carrier, a nuclear armed iran with usually damage security. it's a reminder of the role played by energy. the reality that the united states in a competitive situation, competing with china. energy prices in china are 20% higher than energy prices here in the united states. and yet -- the question is going forward, are we going to be able to access energy at a lower cost, or are we going to foreclose those possibilities? we sit here today at this hearing at a time when you already have layoffs in the
united states related to the oil pipeline, the keystone pipeline project. last week, 60 americans lost their job as a result of the president's decision not to give the green light to go ahead with the keystone project. we sit here in the united states today. some of my colleagues were recently talking to the canadian industry here. we saw the reaction of prime minister harper after the president made a decision not to go forward with the keystone pipeline. that reaction was to embrace a long-term strategy of looking to asia for exports from canada. we know who jin tao has approached and had a meeting with prime minister harper about the idea of having the oil from alberta shipped not here in the united states, but instead transited to china, to chinese
refineries. and what china sheiks here is to reduce its cost of energy. we compete with china. it is going to impact jobs in the united states this energy costs go down as a result and if energy costs go up in the united states. so we have an opportunity. the united states has this opportunity if you read the financial press is the industrial exporter if we are able to access. north america can do this if we access the oil sands from alberta if we go forward with the keystone pipeline for the first time in 60 years, our country would have the opportunity to be independent of the current circumstances, where we depend on the opec cartel, where we shift our dollars, our petrodollars into that market.
and we should ask ourselves a think at this point in time, are we better serve recirculating those dollars, sending money to an ally, canada, where 80% of what we stand and canada according to economists are sent back here in the united states, or are we better served foreclosing adoption, allowing china and canada to cement the deal that hu jintao is working on that would allow those resources to go on instead to china and continue to be dependent on sending our petrodollars into saudi arabia and into venezuela into other states that are either unreliable or hostile to the united states. we can continue with our trade imbalance with respect to the opec cartel, or we can have our dollars staying at home, not
being shipped to saudi arabia and venezuela from the standpoint of american jobs, we can create those jobs here, or we can create those jobs in china. that is their decision. right now the president is making a decision to lay off americans. 60 havarti been laid off as a result of this decision and instead have those jobs go to china. you can have american jobs at the u.s. government and state governments will assist. there is a reason why unemployment is under 4% in north dakota. and that is because of the booming energy sector there. that is because the administration has yet to find a way to shut that down. but not only does that benefit like dakota, it is also benefiting pennsylvania and other states.
greater u.s. manufacturing competitiveness is a major issue for us here in the united states. the explosion in natural gas production has given this united states advantage here, but only if we can access that advantage. if we curtail that, if we shut off that possibility, then we are not going to be the beneficiaries. good things are only going to happen if those in washington to make these decisions and in our state capitals let that happen. i am going to go back to the keystone pipeline, a 1700-mile extension that would =tranfour 830,000 barrels of oil per day from alberta to our refineries here rather than in china. by the chamber's estimate, we know that the estimate of 20,000 direct jobs. by the chamber estimates 20 and
direct jobs in the united states. and yet, we faced away after delay and a suggestion of delayed until the next election. well, the chinese are not waiting. and if energy is then piped to texas refineries and refineries throughout the midwest, it is going to go instead to china. and i just would conclude with the concept or the argument that prime minister harper made after the administration reject today's decision. he was very disappointed and he laid out the argument that they would look long range to china and to asia. and we can only hope president obama drops his opposition. i turn now to the ranking member for his opening statement. >> mr. connolly, would you like to make a statement?
>> thank you, mr. chairman. and i think they're making member for his graciousness. i went to thank you for the opportunity to address energy issues is interrelated. given the prominence of the debate about the keystone accel pipeline and the payroll tax bill, like you, mr. chairman, i'm going to focus primarily on that issue. the international agency recently issued its world energy outlook, which contained one notable piece of news. u.s. dependence on foreign a particularly middle eastern oil is project it to decline in contrast to china in europe. according to the iea, the primary reason for a dependence on foreign oil will decline as the adoption of the aggressive vehicle efficiency standards, which will increase corporate average fuel economy standards to 54.5 miles by the year 2025. he projected increase also will make a contribution to reduce foreign oil dependence, though according to the iea, that increase in production will have
a much smaller impact than actual vehicle efficiency standards. proponents of the keystone xl pipeline will increase canadian oil. while this has intuitive appeal, it deserves further examination. five major oil pipelines already transport this oil derived from canadian tar sands into the united states. these pipelines now terminate in oklahoma, illinois and michigan, providing much of the u.s. was derived oil. in fact, industry analysts no pipelines have produced an oversupply of oil in some parts of our country, creating low gas prices for some americans and diminish oil profits. the keystone pipeline will provide an export outlet for canadian oil and actually reducing supply in the midwest by allowing oil companies to sell and high-priced markets elsewhere in the world. in the abstract of the members
could agree that boosting domestic oil production in environmentally responsible manner will be beneficial so far as it could reduce dependence. we discussed the subject in this committee. as i stated at the time, i support such efforts to boost domestic reduction for domestic consumption. therefore when legislation to address the keystone pipeline came to the floor, introduced as i said they would hear, a simple amendment requiring the oil to be used in america. that amendment would have ensured that americans enjoy affordable gasoline and national security benefits as a result of the benefits that evaporated oil companies exporting oil, the more expensive markets in china or europe. i was surprised and disappointed, mr. chairman or the house majority rejected the simple amendment, calling into question motives underlying the push to approve the keystone pipeline. alberta energy minister ron
lieber says, if there is something that can be up tonight, it would be this year that too long we are going to be landlocked din. while canadian oil companies might increase profits from selling oil overseas, such exports, at the expense and american national security. if we are in conceptual agreement that there is the relationship between domestic oil supply national security, perhaps we should acknowledge that hemorrhaging oil overseas overseas but undercut the benefits. proponents of the pipeline have argued it will create jobs. i ask you this consent to enter into the wreck. the "washington post" that check article noting job estimates offered by prominent officials have been wildly exaggerated. in reality the pipeline will create and produce at most one 6000 annual temporary construction related jobs and as few as 50 permanent jobs. compared to the halfling public-sector jobs lost in the recent recession and national
recovery, disk is an anemic job boost their best. irrespective of whether one of the climate change science denier or acceptor, surely all of us could agree additional oil transported by the pipeline should stay in the united states and absent legal guarantees likely will not. with that, you're back. thank you, mr. chair. >> will turn now to mr. johnson of ohio. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd be happy to yield back a minute of my time to the chairman. >> i appreciate the gentleman yielding. the difficulty here is that china has dirty invested 10 billion in canada's oil sands. canada's prime minister as a result of this decision by our president has already said the
necessity of making sure that we are able to access asian markets for our energy products is underscored by this delay. the question is not if we bring these products to refineries here in the united states -- i mean, not complex by such and i will quote from department of energy, the department of energy says that gasoline prices in all markets served by these refineries as we talk about the keystone pipeline project would decrease gasoline prices would decrease in the gold coast gasoline prices would decrease in the east coast and gasoline prices would decrease here in the united states in the midwest. and everybody agrees having a falling price for gasoline is necessarily -- depends upon your perspective on this.
i was valued from a competitive standpoint, from a standpoint of creating jobs here as opposed to china, this is a very important issue. i yield back to mr. johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i also appreciate our witnesses being here today. the lack of stability surrounding markets today and potential for greater instability in the near future will not only continue to stand to stunt the growth of our economy. it will jeopardize our national security. by importing oil from nations such as saudi arabia and venezuela, the west is funding the spread of terrorism for an activism in stark contrast to foreign-policy objectives. as the world increasingly looks to the west for its energy needs, we have an opportunity to alter the scores and spur growth in our struggling economy. thanks in part to breakthroughs in safety and to elegy the united states is on track to become the top mobile oil and
gas producer by 2020. in fact, the u.s. top russia, saudi arabia and combined for energy reserves, including oil, coal and natural gas. more than 9.2 million u.s. jobs are dependent on the oil and gas industry. and shale is a huge part, particularly in my district of southeastern ohio. exploration of marsalis and utica shales is a game changer, not only for energy development independence, but for job creation. or than 200,000 jobs are expected to come to ohio in the next four years alone as a result of developing these deposits. there is a major growth and development happening now in america's energy sec or her. something that can turn our economy around and bring hundreds of thousands of jobs to americans in need of a paycheck. however, high tax rates and excessive government regulation has the potential to destroy robust ambitions.
we have seen this in the demonstration's refusal to approve the keystone hacksaw pipeline. this project is a no-brainer for job creation would also significantly decrease our dependence on hostile foreign sources of oil. there is no logic to the administration's insistence on refusing a permit for this project. the united states doesn't have to be on the receiving end of opec's decisions. we have great potential in all the resources we require to secure our energy needs. we can actually be the nation leading the global transition to the west. the question is, will he have the leadership to take control of our future to make this a reality? thank you, mr. chairman. and i yield back. >> mr. sherman. >> thank you for holding these important hearings. the effective energy on our national security cannot be overstated.
i know most of the comments here have been about the keystone pipeline. i think these hearings are far, far broader and the impact of energy on national security is far more significant than this one pipeline. to address this pipeline, i think we have to take a look at the environmental concerns about how that pipeline should be built, they route it ought to take and why it is bypassing the markets of the midwest to go down to texas, which is the one part of the united states saturday has more oil than it can consume. i realize that there are some in the environmental movement who believe that if this pipeline is built, then the carbon atom on the petroleum under the ground of canada will not be burned mixed with oxygen atoms are sent into her atmosphere. i think the others opening
statements have made it clear that at some point canada will find a way to exploit this resource, whether it's through the united states or through their port of vancouver to the world markets. however, we shouldn't think that is automatic or easier the keystone is going to go away next week. there are environmentalists in canada. i have met them and they are no more excited about the building of an east-west or pipeline through canada than our american environmentalists really keystone pipeline. energy really comes down to two separate issues are somewhat separate issues and that is, how do we generate the electricity and how to remove her vehicles? this is sometimes lumped together as one issue, sits where the national security crisis, how are you going to generate electricity? no, we have a world
environmental crisis and global warming when we burn coal, which we do create about half of our electricity. so one energy market is for electricity and the other is for moving vehicles. it is moving vehicles that has been the security crisis because the world hasn't found a better system yet and petroleum for reasons that have not been explained to me is in all the wrong places, at least that which was exploitable by a tech elegy existing here. crude oil prices have almost quadrupled since the year 2000. they now stand at $94. opec is now headed by a senior commander of the revolutionary guard corps overran. i think this illustrates the fact that we do have a national
security problem when it comes to vehicle propulsion. i've been a strong supporter of international and domestic research, asked to cooperation with other countries. we have this one not of the u.s.-israel energy cooperation act, in which both countries but at the same amount of money for joint research projects in both countries have a strong incentive to win the world from petroleum. in contrast, the subcommittee on asia and the pacific adherents in a $4 million program to give foreign aid to china to help you with its energy problems, to help it meet its carbon emission objectives. chinese carb is a chinese proverb a nice paycheck they have enough dollars to pay for any american take elegy they think necessary to deal with the issue. so, i look forward to hearing from our witnesses as to how
will propel her vehicles without propelling to better power the enemies of the united states. and finally, i want to echo the gentleman from virginia that a pipeline that bypasses america's midwest markets and takes oil to ports in the united states for possible export may not be the best way to assure our national security. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman and we look not to our panel, mr. neelesh nerurkar is a specialist at the national research institute where he helps members and our staff understand the complexity of the energy market and energy security and international energy issues. and prior to being with crs coming in the last global energy markets for a major energy company. mr. robert mcnally is the founder and president of at
nongroup independent energy consulting firm he is through several positions in the energy industry and in the previous administration. mr. mcnally served as senior director for international on the national security council. mr. martin durbin is the executive vice president for government affairs at the american petroleum institute. he is responsible for their policy. they have 450 members, ranging from the largest oil and natural gas companies to the small and independent companies. he worked on the hill as a staff member in both the senate and the house. mr. gal luft is executive director of the institute for the analysis of global security. that is a think tank focused on energy security and serves as an adviser to the united states energy security council and is cofounder of the set america
energy production is capital-intensive. projects have long times and can face policy geopolitical concerns. oil prices fell with a global economic downturn in 2008 but has rebounded. demand for these countries have pushed global consumption to new highs in 2010 and 2011. now, the higher prices in turn have motivated investment, technology to contributing to an increase in energy supplies particularly from the new complex or expensive resources are now the world. a number of examples come from the united states and elsewhere in the western hemisphere for instance u.s. title wheel and shale gas production, u.s. and brazilian official production, brazil's presold produces and canada oil sands. turning to the market the world consumes 88 million barrels a day in oil related fields. 40% is met with opec which includes major producers in the middle east, africa and south america. the world's largest non-opec oil producers are russia and the united states. united states is also the
world's largest oil consumer and largest importer. net imports and 45% of u.s. oil consumption, but this is down from the peak of 60% in 2005. net imports have declined by 4 million barrels a day in six years. nearly half the sequence can be treated to lower u.s. oil consumption, a result of the economic downturn and higher oil prices. the rest is due to higher domestic production of oil and other liquid fuels particularly onshore crude oil and at all. the largest crude oil production have taken place enough to cut and texas. oil production and not to cut the formation asra but the increasing in recent years and unable to buy technology advances and horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. ethanol production is supported by federal policy and higher gasoline prices. among the largest decline in the production have been in alaska and california. despite lower u.s. imports come in u.s. imports from canada have increased by 20% between 2005 and 2011 aided by growth in the oil stands out. accounting for a quarter of u.s. imports canada is now the largest foreign source of oil.
meanwhile, the import volumes from opec have fallen. opec countries continue to account for half of u.s. net imports. most of that comes from opec members outside the persian gulf, in venezuela and nigeria for example. there's a broad set of issues to consider here. i will briefly cover three. first, the impact of high energy prices investment, technology development and policy incentives aren't limited to oil. they are also driving for instance rapid growth and renewable electricity generation. also, drilling technology innovations of increased and conventional natural gas supplies and help keep natural gas prices low. shale gas is dramatically changed the u.s. natural gas output. so much so some companies are now considering new liquefied natural gas exports. other countries are looking to see if the can replicate the u.s. shale gas experience. second, some energy sources involved environmental and fiscal trade-offs. for example, the use of hydraulic fracturing to recover natural gas oil have raised
concerns about water resource risks and some are concerned about the greenhouse gas emissions and ecosystem impacts from oil sands production and transport and refining. there are also fiscal trade-offs we're new energy sources require government support, for instance, the tax credit for at the mall. finally, the oil market is globally integrated and oil market even anywhere can affect prices everywhere. for example, even though the united states imported little oil from libya, the crisis they're contributed to higher oil costs here are the oil was imported by ship, pipeline or produced at home. foreign oil market disruptions can continue to affect u.s. oil prices even if the u.s. were to produce as much as it consumes. in conclusion, rapid energy intensive economic growth from developing countries contributed to energy price increases which in turn enabled new sources of energy supply growth. however, some of those sources of how your commercial environmental and fiscal costs. domestic oil growth is reducing the need for imports. but we remain connected to a global oil market where the
spotlight because it is our actions continue to cause economic and security concerns. figure for the opportunity to appear before the committee, and i'm happy to address questions. >> thank you again. we will go to mr. mcnally. >> chairman comer lynndie member come at you for allowing me to testify. i would also like to make three points drawing on my testimony. submitted for the record. one, new energy supply in the hemisphere will have real benefits if we allow them to be produced. member to come even if we produce more oil and guess here we will still be connected to the global market and have a vital national security interest in and around the persian gulf. three, the risk of oil price spikes must not and need not be an excuse to avoid interrupting the oil exports. the loss of iran's can be offset in the strategic reserves and increasing the saudi arabia. a nuclear iran would possess for the lasting risks of price spikes.
to the first point, potential new and u.s. western hemisphere oil and gas supplies can confer benefits but whether we realize will depend on future regulatory policies. the benefits include lower import dependence when she strength and resilience to the disruptions and reduce the need to borrow abroad. new supplies anywhere outside of the middle east all else equal ability to disruption in that part of the world. down the road we may be able to use the new deposits to displace oil imports to the fleet electrification. natural gas vehicles to revitalize the domestic chemical sector and the exports for russia's leverage over western europe. but second, even if we sharply reduce oil import dependence on our economy and national security will remain tightly linked to the global market especially to the trends and events in the persian gulf. oil is a fungible commodity that is lightly traded in a global market. as my colleague said, a description of price shock anywhere means a price shock everywhere. lower oil in port-au-prince or in prince economic resilience
but will not inflate or shocks. eia predicts it will hold about 42% of the demand by 2035. oil imports with 36% of demand in 1973 when we had the first oil price shock. the persian gulf now amounts to about 60% of crude oil imports and expects to stay to that level 2035 tvd and if we didn't in poured a drop from the middle east our vital national interest would remain. the middle east and the persian gulf is and will remain the world's most important energy region. as of 2009 and held 56% of global proven oil reserves, nearly all of those in the persian gulf. the iea projects leased share of global oil share will rise from 28 to 31% to 2035. with a higher market share and higher prices, middle eastern oil producers are going to err in trillions and trillions of dollars in revenue. we must remain engaged in that region partly to ensure that when it was all spent to threaten us or our allies. another interest is to make sure that china and india's soaring dependence on middle east oil
mentioned earlier does not lead to strategic competition and conflict. the international energy agency ceased china's import and over 84%. and in the's over 92% with 2035. the u.s. foreign policy can and should aim to share the costs, burdens and responsibilities of protecting the gulf and the sea lanes with a friendly and cable importers. such cooperation access to some extent with multinational and i piracy patrol. but for the foreseeable future, only the united states can play a leading role in guaranteeing the stability of the persian gulf. this brings me to my last point. the iranian regime's pursuit of nuclear weapons poses a grave, clear and present danger to the national security, including the rest of economically damaging oil price spikes. we and especially you face a dilemma. only interrupting your aunts because crude-oil exports is likely to change the behavior. but that step could cause oil price spikes that could hurt the importers of the iranian crude and even motorists.
iran experts about 2.2 million barrels a day, total spare capacity in the world is about 3 million a day. as my colleague said earlier this year we found out what happens when we lost 1.7 million a day come gasoline prices led to $4 a gallon. the alternative to the oil sanctions, military options, will also cause price spikes. and if fighting oil sanctions or military options are not used, iran will probably get nuclear weapons. this outcome poses the biggest and most enduring risk not only to the national security, but also of oil price spikes. some believe a nuclear-armed iran could be contained and she toured as a soviet union was during the cold war. even if containment worked, it is a costly and dangerous strategy. the early decades of the cold war were violent and nearly catastrophic. by the oil prices will remain stable after israel, saudi arabia and iran test nuclear weapons and state the retaliatory doctrines. much less continue to fight proxy war and conflict arising from millennia, of religious, ethnic and cultural hostility.
iran's president and clear weapons is likely to raise oil prices when we were together. officials could manage this oil price risk by adopting what i call a "quarantine and relief strategy." we would hold all if not all most of iran's exports while offsetting the supply loss with a drawdown and strategic stock and higher saudi production. strategic stocks or large, secure and located in the consuming regions. they are an important tool that can protect the economy while we raise the cost on the iranian regime for its illegal and dangerous nuclear weapons question. short of a military action, quarantine and release may be the last option to avoid a nuclear iran which would pose the biggest risk to the national security as well as to oil prices. thank you. >> thank you. mr. durbin. >> good morning mr. chairman, mr. sherman, members of the
committee and the key for the opportunity to testify this morning. as the title of the hearing implies there's no question global energy markets are changing. while members continue to operate and investors around the world, there's growing recognition that rebalancing of energy markets is occurring, and that due to enormous new potential reserves, both onshore and in the deep water, and deutsch the geopolitical stability, the western hemisphere is quickly becoming a much bigger player on the global energy stage. for today's purposes, however, i will limit my comments to opportunities we have to enhance our energy and national security right here in north america. in some parts of the u.s., as has been noted already, we'll and natural gas to the look is booming. while total u.s. crude production has remained constant since 2010, the goal of mexico offshore and alaskan production has dropped. this has been offset mainly by increased production on shore and north dakota and texas almost exclusively on them on federal land. this increase in domestic onshore production along with an overall drop in demand has
allowed u.s. imports to decline during this period. the fact is you're an enormously energy rich nation and we should be taking bigger the advantage of the domestic energy resources. to highlight this point, the energy consulting firm wood mackenzie calculated the benefits of expanded domestic development earlier this year and a study conducted for epi. it concluded that america's oil and natural gas industry can create 1.4 million new jobs between 30. 1 million of those can be created in just the next seven years. the same study showed that allowing greater production in the u.s. can generate an additional $800 billion to federal and local treasuries by 2013. that will erase our debt but it is a nice down payment. and it doesn't end there. in 2010 our industry directly contributed more than $470 billion to the u.s. economy in spending.
this happens every year with no cost to the taxpayer. the keystone exfil pipeline is a perfect example of an energy project will also enhance our national security. now in its fourth year of review, keystone xl will create thousands of good paying jobs for american families and as the labor unions, whose members will directly benefit from this project testified last week, it's more than a pipeline. it's a lifeline. it's time to put the safest most highly trained productive work force to work on this project. it's also worth noting the keys to mix all pipeline will not only be an outlet for the oil sands in canada, but for the increased production we are seeing in the upper plains states and north dakota and montana. looking to canada, it's about more than just one pipeline project. 80,000 americans are currently employed because of canadian oil sands and according to the canadian energy research institute and stand to create an additional 500,000 american jobs by 2035 ban spurring $770 billion of economic
activity. already at least 2400 companies and 49 states involved in developing oil sands. either buy supplies and services in canada or by expanding our pipeline and refinery systems here in the u.s.. another fact, and i believe is the chairman noted for every dollar the u.s. spends on canadian products including oil, canada returns 90 cents of u.s. goods and services. some people see that level of return with other trading partners. we also have to think more broadly about our energy future. the dod's energy administration forecasts it is expected to grow nearly 50% by 2035. and the u.s. will require 20% more energy. they also project renewables will need only 13% of the energy demand while oil and gas, oil and natural gas will supply about 55%. the choice is not between fossil fuel and renewable. we are going to need all of it. in fact our industry and companies have invested more in the zero in the low carbon
research than the federal government, and nearly as much as all of their industry's combined. growing renewals will continue to be important, but secure sources of oil and natural gas will be essentials. canada is already the number one supplier and with projects like keystone, we have the ability to significantly increase canadian imports which already making up for declines in imports from mexico and venezuela. cambridge energy research associates projects canada could supply 5 million barrels of oil a day to the united states and 2030 or one and 4 barrels of american expect to consume. by expanding our access to domestic energy resources, strengthening our energy partnership with canada, and increasing our domestic biofuel use it is possible we can produce all of america's liquid fuel needs by 2026. so, in closing, we'll and natural gas will continue to be critical meeting our needs.
we can choose to safely and responsibly produce more american energy, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs generating billions for the government or stand on the sidelines and watch as other countries produce resources we then have to purchase. thank you mr. sherman. >> thank you. >> mr. luft? >> i'm honored to represent here the united states energy security council which includes former secretaries of defense, state, interior, transportation, homeland security, agriculture and airforce. former chairman of the fed alan greenspan, national security advisers, directors of cia can't flag officers and former marketing shale oil and foods. all of them are concerned about our growing dependence on petroleum and the impact on the national security and economic well-being. as was mentioned before, earlier this year, the department of energy announced u.s. imports of
petroleum declined from 12 plight 5 million barrels a day in 2005 to 8.6 million barrels of oil this year. u.s. import dependency dropped from 60% to 46%. this 31% reduction in our level of imports in just seven years is a remarkable achievement. some of this is due to the recession but most is due to as mentioned fuel-efficient see an even more importantly, significant ramp up in the domestic production by technologies. so far, so good, but here is the rap. with america's legal imports dropped our foreign oil expenditures climbed buy almost 50% from $247 billion in 2005 to $367 billion this year. the share of oil imports in the overall trade deficit grew from 42% in 2005 to 51% this year. worst of all, the price of a gallon of gasoline increased by
65%. so despite the lower demand, the u.s. drivers spend this year on gasoline more than any other year before. so yes, we've become more self-sufficient and more efficient, but at the same time we've become poorer and deeper in debt. we are becoming more so-called energy independent but less prosperous. what's wrong with this picture? clearly something is wrong with our method. being self-sufficient does not shield the economy from the shocks when the price of oil spikes it speaks for everyone. only 9% of the oil comes from the persian gulf yet the economy is always very vulnerable when things happen there. as long as we'll remains the only source of energy to participate in the transportation fuel market, those that control the lion's share production reserves will rule the day. particularly referring to opec,
which despite the control of 79% of the global conventional reserves produced today, almost the same number of barrels they did 30 years ago. even though the world economy more than doubled since. the arabs burning created a situation which of the governments have gone into major liabilities and to the tune of about $150 billion keeping people happy so they don't end up like mubarak and the other leaders. who is paying for it? we are paying for this. and i find it to be sad while we have this conversation in the united states about reducing entitlement programs through hard working americans, we are funding entitlement programs in saudia arabia, kuwait and united arab immigrants. what is wrong with our method is we feel to address the rules of our energy vulnerability and that is the virtual monopoly over the transportation fuels. the monopoly is enabled by the fact that for the most part our
automobiles of block to fuel not made from oil. since 2005 roughly 100 million vehicles roll over in the roads each with an average life cycle of 15 years. by allowing this to happen, we will store sells for the next two decades with all the implications. congress can break a virtual monopoly with the stroke of a pen by enacting the open fuel standards act which was introduced earlier this year. the two page bill would ensure that cars sold in the united states are open to fuel competition so the drivers can compare per my all and make on the fly choices between gasoline and diesel and a variety of fuels. as i indicated in my written testimony they would open the door to a metal which is an alcohol fuel that provides the most economical way to introduce our abundant natural gas resources as alternatives to petroleum in the sector.
mr. chairman, this time 200 years ago napoleon was preparing his army to russian to among russia. at this time sold was the most important commodity by virtue of its monopoly over food preservation. the deposit comfort natural power war or even fought with salt. it was a killer fuel of the machine. its status as the commodity ended with the invention of alternative ways to preserve food like canning and refrigeration. the disaster russia campaign was the last time in history salt played a role in politics. today we consume and import more than ever. undoubtedly anybody in this room is concerned about sold dependent or where it is coming from. petroleum today occupies the same strategic grounds salt did with a simple legislative fix with the cost to taxpayers the congress can deliver to leal the
same fate to humanity delivered to sold so let's get it done. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, dr. luft. let me open with a few questions for our panel here. in the near future, china is going to make up one-third of the world oil demand growth, and that need has driven the foreign policy around the world. we have seen that whether it's sudan or burma or central asia. we've seen some of the consequences because it's all about resources for beijing. and i would add a where china goes, corruption also follows in terms of their attempt to have access to this. now they are in our hemisphere. now china is here. they've established a working group on energy and chinese companies have invested
10 billion in canada's oil sands. now, this is my perspective on this, but it seems to me that the obama administration has laid out the welcome mat for china with respect to the keystone pipeline project and the decision not to go forward, and i base that partly on the reaction in canada or if any of the members of the press would like to talk to the canadian embassy about this this really pained the canadian government. just days after the obama administration announced the delay the canadian prime minister steven harper met with chinese hu jintao and harper was painfully blunt and what he said was, quote, this does underscore
the necessity of canada making sure that we are able to access the asian markets for our energy products. that was his quote. those remarks spurred headlines around the world. asia a priority for canada after u.s. delay it keystone and "the wall street journal" canada shops wheel after pipeline halt, and it is a halt at a press conference not long ago with a representative of the pipeline company, the company that's making that pipeline. they said last week they lead off 60 of their employees and there's more coming. there's a consequence of this decision. and indeed, there are now canadian proposals to dramatically increase the capacity for oil from alberta to
reach the canadian west coast in order to be shipped to china. these plans are being sent with a view towards diversifying away from an unreliable partner, the united states, and instead they are looking at china. and this is all being planned with a long term focus on the chinese market in mind. now mr. durbin, canada is not waiting around. i wonder if you share my concerns, and i would ask how accessible is canada's alberta oil markets and to the chinese market? >> mr. chairman, thank you for the question. i'm not sure i can give you a clear answer on the access of
devotee of china to the market other than to say as you pointed out they've made significant investments in the oil sands. i don't think it is a surprise. it's been pointed out canada has an enormous resource that they are sitting on top of the will find a way to get this to market. our focus and certainly at api we share the disappointment to the delay of the pipeline, but we are today utilizing oil sands in the canadian energy resources to a great extent and i think it is in our national interest, our energy interest, our security interest to enhance that even more. there is no question that canada will find outlets for the oil sands crude and we believe there are too many benefits from the job creation economic growth energy and national security to bypass the opportunity. >> let me follow up with a quote from the u.s. department of
energy study that the confession -- commissioned. if pipeline projects to the british columbia coast are built, they are likely to be utilized. this is because of the relatively short distances to the major north and east asia markets. and future economic growth. and because of increasing ownership interest by a chinese companies especially in oil sands production. such increased capacity will alter global crude trade patterns. canadian crude would be lost from the usa going instead to asia. there they would displace the wiltz balancing crude oil,
middle eastern and africa predominantly which would in turn and move to the usa. the net effect would be substantially higher u.s. dependency on crude oil from those sources versus the scenario where the capacity to move canadian crude to asia was limited. so we have a choice and i would ask do you share this analysis that canadian oil in these words could be lost to china? that's there quote. >> that is a concern, and again, our broad concern is better control our energy future and the resources we have available to us from canada. it is one of the critical paths we have to take going forward to
it again retain that control. >> use it in your testimony we have a choice before us and i think it is straightforward. i will go to the chairman now. >> mr. durbin, what keystone be willing to build if american law prohibited the export of the petroleum and was brought to us through that pipeline? >> i obviously can't speak for trans canada. i know the testified some of this last week as well. the only move the product. >> would the american petroleum institute support a statute that provided the pipeline could be built perhaps with some additional environmental safeguards? but prohibited the export of the oil carried by the pipeline? >> i don't think api would support that. >> so basically you're not here to try to give us energy security, you are here to try to let some oil companies make money by building a pipeline. >> no, sir, i don't think that's
right. you don't create energy security by having canadian oil exported to europe as opposed to japan through the united states. the fact is if the proponents of the pipeline and the industry itself insist on the right to export it to planas to build a pipeline by passing for the interior markets in the midwest and bringing it to the port well equipped for export, it sure looks like export. >> if you look at the refineries in the gulf coast that invested billions of dollars to be able to process it won't be refined -- >> it continues to be the largest market for gasoline and diesel. all of the incentive is to have the jobs here, the investment here, but again, it is a global market, like the gasoline and
that doesn't seem to be the plan if the pipeline was to the u.s. markets in the middle west we wouldn't have this issue. we wouldn't be talking about the aquifer in nebraska, and there wouldn't be the risk of export. >> reclaiming my time. i want to turn to first we need to put a few things in the record without objection of like to put in the record material submitted by the sierra club, the wilderness society, a statement by dr. with the wilderness society and a report from the leal change international concerning the pipeline. back when i was chairman i would say without objection, so ordered. i'd also like to put on the pipeline an excellent article by dr. luft who is here with
foreign policy magazine dealing with how the antirussia vestige of the state department has caused it to in race pipelines designed to get natural gas to europe and that natural gas may eventually come from iran. it's a fascinating article about how iran's economic situation will be perhaps dramatically improved over the next decade or so as they are able to export this natural gas to europe as a direct result of u.s. policy. and if i have time, i would like to ask you some questions about that but i want to shift to something else and that is the open fuel standards. opened fuel standards means ethanol i'm not all that excited turning cornyn into fuel is one
of the reasons we have such high food prices around the world, and it hasn't really been an alternative. but we have huge natural gas deposits in north america. would be the first of all, it's more would be open fuel standards cost to manufacture and second, what is the technology to fuel that vehicle with natural gas? >> the open fuel standard isn't a bill. it does not support or endorse any fuel. it is designed to deal with the fact cars today are walked to competition. >> automobile standards. >> exactly. >> how much more would a charge? >> it depends on the technology. if they choose to do electric vehicles will be $10,000. if they choose to do flecks fuel it will be in the order of $100
or less. so for $100 or less, the car would be able to run on gasoline, but also a variety of all cahal. ethanol is only one of them, but we do see the potential from methanol. methanol as mit just concluded in its report is the most economic use of natural gas and if you convert it into liquid fuel called methanol the price of bethell today is about a dollar 14 adel limit to convert to gasoline on energy equivalence, it would be significantly cheaper than gasoline. so there is a fuel that can compete against gasoline and it is made by domestic natural gas will not allow it to compete?
why block it from the market? interestingly, it is the oil and gas industry i think could benefit a lot from this bill because natural gas prices are very low today. and the reason they are very low is that there is no demand. we are producing more and more but there is no way that we can of sorted because our utilities are just they don't observe it fast enough. >> sorry for interrupting. basically this could very much help domestic oil and gas industry producers. it would be competition for the international oil industry. mr. durbin where are you on the open standards? >> i haven't had a chance to look this is the first i've heard of the idea. >> i commend you for proposing the idea with the idea of requiring this eda five or i forget with the logo was of general motors, there's a lot of the flexible fuel standards on automobiles on the roads and i
look forward to getting mr. burba and's organization's comment and yield back the time i don't have. mr. johnson, please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. mcnally this week the house passed two bills to strengthen the sanctions on iran house resolution 2105 and 1905. in addition the house passed the defense authorization bill, h.r. 1540, which included a provision to the sanction entities that do business with the central bank of iran. what's been the effect of the sanctions imposed thus far in the year on's oil industry and what else can we do to prevent a nuclear weapons armed iran without disrupting the markets? >> thank you for the question. the obama administration should be commended for strengthening sanctions against iran in putting on the oil industry and urging other countries to do so. as a result, iran has had to
work harder to sell its oil. it's had to circumvent banks and find the go-between and give credit and we have made life a little more difficult for iran to sell its oil. however it is still doing so. it exports about 2.2 million barrels a day. in my view of the legislation that has been worked on here is still too week and gives the president easy outs to avoid sanctions that would crimp the exports significantly. it gives a national security out and also gives the held where the president says there's not sufficient supply to offset the loss of iran there would be a waiver. tight spending capacity in the will of most 3 million a day that is the estimate that's probably very high many folks in the private sector are much lower. but at 3 million barrels a day and expected to stay fairly low in the coming years, the market will always be too tight to risk
crimping the oil exports. in my view that is why we must neuter that argument and look to welcoming the president's decision to use the strategic stock to offset the supply loss from iran. so in my view i think sanctions have been too week. we've been playing patty cake and we need to start playing hardball through 64. you know, the united states has long band oil imports and there have been calls for the e.u. to do the same. would be the impact in europe and of the european union ban on products? or imports come i'm sorry. >> in my view that would because europe's only accounts for about 400,000 barrels a day of iran's total to .2 million barrels a day of exports, i think that if your vet were to ban imports you would see the rearranging of the flow. it would be a great day for russia because those refiners have been taking in the iranian
crude would look to the russian exports to replace the beryl's so there would be the rearranging of the flows and would probably lead to some higher costs for european consumers to read all the mcginn, the europeans could lower the strategic stocks to have the stock drop to offset that. the iranians would have to sell the oil cheaper and asia. the chinese are hard bargainers and when they showed up with these stranded beryl's they had been showing to the greeks but now they no longer could come in iran would have to probably accept a discount. so iran would lose some of the revenue that it currently earns on its exports because it would sell it into a smaller market that was aware that the liberals were blocked from europe. so it would print iran and make life more difficult and cut into revenues somewhat. >> what was the effect of the ban on the global markets? >> the ban of the iranian imports? no affect the i aware of.
>> okay. with that i think i will yield back the remainder of my time to the gentleman. >> i just one follow-up on that question to mr. durbin. again, we had a study from the department of energy that says gasoline prices in all markets served by the gulf coast and the east coast refineries would decrease including the midwest. i am perplexed and the question of the midwest. i assume that the answer is the excess refining capacity must be in the gulf and the midwest must be run in full throttle so if you dictated that the alberta oil capacity would go to the midwest refineries they wouldn't be able to handle the access. is that the issue? >> the midwest refineries are currently processing oil sands crude oil. so this does provide greater flexibility and diversity of supply in the gulf coast refineries to serve the domestic market.
>> the problem is you've got limited refining capacity of around the united states. i know that is the problem in california. and we've all -- the government will not allow the new refineries to be built in the past experience. so the question is getting it to the refineries with excess capacity to serve on the domestic market. >> let me go to mr. connolly. >> thank you mr. chairman. i found myself mostly in agreement with your opening statement. and i think to be intellectually honest if you are right. if the goal is to lessen reliance on foreign oil il especially from areas in the world that are problematic for lots of different reasons frankly everything's got to be on the table. doesn't mean we have to prove everything but it does mean intellectually to be honest everything is going to be examined forthrightly on its merits so i applaud you for that principle because i think that guides what we do and frankly
with respect to me on the keystone pipeline isn't an ideological issue for me. in the spirit of being intellectually honest, a couple of points. does transcanada now have the determinants of vancouver? >> vancouver, yes. is there a line that ends in vancouver? i don't know whether transcanada has aligned. >> our tar sands product to the point of vancouver. i don't know. >> i have a map that says there is a pipeline that runs to the canadian west coast from the alberta stands right now. >> i know california gets some capacity. >> and there are proposals for expansion. >> is the purpose of the vancouver determinant at least in part the purpose of the experts?
>> it's not from the -- some of that goes to asia is that not correct? >> there is some going to china. >> so the idea that because of the delay canada is now looking at the chinese market. that's not true. as a matter of fact, the been in the china market and the reason to look at the china market has nothing to do with the delay. it has to do with the fact china is the fastest-growing market right now in the world and has enormous potential and if you are and oil exporter in that business that is a market you have to look at, isn't it, just reasonably from the business side? you didn't assert that, the chairman did. >> the gentleman will yield it was not me asserting it. it was the prime minister of canada and was the employees of the canadian embassy. but let's put back of the quote
-- >> replete in my time. >> i just going to put the quote up. >> reclaiming my time, mr. chairman, the canadian government knows how to communicate with the government and frankly that is sent through the sharing of the subcommittee. so if they want to formally communicate to the government their concerns about the pipeline or the chinese market, they will know how to do that. but i thank the chairman and i would be happy to deal. the proposed permanent at port arthur texas, this is why mr. upon in the spirit of being intellectual, trans canada has a different business model where it is limited contracts to long-term contracts including with two major exporters and the retrofitting or building of the new refineries clearly seems to be for export, not for the domestic market. why would we build new refineries and port arthur, texas if the program solely for
the domestic consumption why not do it in the midwest where we already have pipelines and the product is already coming to the united states such that we have a glut in that area and keystone itself pointed out if we don't do something to alleviate that prices will fall. if we do something to alleviate that like this pipeline, the actually say in the application papers prices come on like with the chairman indicated, will actually rise per barrel. why would we have the internet at port arthur texas if the purpose wasn't clearly for export? maybe not exclusively but just like the vancouver the refining capacity in the port arthur erie and the contracts they are putting in place with refineries throughout that area and continuing to do so if that is where the capacity is. >> in the spirit of your testimony, which i commend, intellectual honesty. don't we have to concede that the purpose of putting the determinants of port arthur is
for export? i just want to say it's not the purpose. >> i said among other purposes it is for export, and i acknowledge that we are dealing with global markets and right now we are exporting -- >> you will also concede would you not that the arguments used in favor of the pipeline have exclusively been about enhancing the domestic supply side in the united states. no one has talked in favor of the pipeline in the congress about the global market, and we have to do our share of building a pipeline and expanding the refinery capacity to enhance exports to other countries. >> time is expired. thank you, mr. chairman, and for having this hearing. i did it's very timely. i will go back to what we heard earlier in the year from one of the defense leaders of the country when he said that there can be no national security
without energy security. i believe that energy is assembly to job creation and that's what this congress needs to be talking about and what we heard the other side talk about this creation of jobs. the keystone exfil pipeline is a job creator to retrieve its refining jobs and construction jobs, and i am not too young to remember the impact the alaska pipeline have on employment in this country as we developed the alaska pipeline to meet our energy needs. it's a prime example love what we can do with keystone xl pipeline with jobs. all canadian oil whether it is in this country or around the will is exported oil from canada to the united states, our largest trading partners, someone we should be treating with every opportunity that we get. we should be utilizing the hemispheric resources. the american public frustrated when they are paying over $3 a
gallon at the pump knowing that we've got the resources in this country. and in the western hemisphere with friendly countries like canada that can supply the resources that we need. they are frustrated when they see this government standing in the way. >> one minute remains on the vote. >> i want to give mr. durbin an opportunity to respond. to mr. sherman if he didn't with the balance of my time. >> thank you, mr. duncan. and i think this is not from the beginning we are exporting products now. so certainly this is the addition of canadian crude into our market and refining simply is providing more supply diversity, going to allow us to produce the fuel that we need here and when it makes sense we are certainly going to be able to export products as well. we import and export but more
importantly, the canadian crude coming into the gulf coast refineries is replacing crude-oil that we had been bringing in from venezuela and mexico. venezuela is sending more product elsewhere and mexico's production is on the decline and we need to replace that. it's only replacing it but it will be even more. and that does and whomever overall energy and national security. >> as we adjourn, let me just close with the comment again of the prime minister of canada. this was several days after the obama administration announced the keystone deily and prime minister steven harper had had a face-to-face meeting with the leader hu jintao and afterwards to the press these were his words. the decision by the united states, this does underscore the necessity of canada making sure that we are able to access the asian markets for our energy products. i think that's pretty straightforward. we stand adjourned.
questions on the economy and the protests blocked by allegations of voter fraud in the recent state elections. he also addressed the death of gadhafi and criticized the tweet by john mccain in the protest. he headed the former presidential candidate had, quote, gone crazy since his capture and torture in vietnam. here is the first hour of the event. >> shall we start? sure. good afternoon. thank you for coming.
i think it will be correct if we start this program with a question about the elections which have caused a variety of reactions in the society and so today have not commented on the developments to the fact that the rally by the individuals who don't tend to see themselves from a majority of them as political opponents, yet they don't quite like how the authorities treat them. the fact that people express their point of view regarding the process seize on the we in the country and its economy and in the social area and in the political area are completely normal things. as long as everybody stays with the law of course and i count on it continuing that way. i've seen on the television
screen people, most of them tend to be young and active people with their own position who clearly and articulately expressed their position and it makes me happy. and if this is the result of the regime, then it's very good. i don't see anything wrong here. once again, the most important thing is for all of the actors and all of the political forces to stay within the law. here's a question regarding the change on the internet. the elections to the state have called traditional this agreement, which ended with a protest in moscow who were enraged by the authorities. do you think that elections were fair and do you think that the results were honest and fair? as far as falsification and the fact that the opposition is unhappy with the result of the elections, tell me something
new. this has always been the case. this will always be the case. this is what opposition exists for and lives for. it fights for power and that is why it looks for any opportunity in order to approach the authorities and somehow out of the incumbent of a valvista point of their mistakes. and on the whole, once again, this in the normal development. as far as these directions and whether or not they were objective, fair and from my perspective have already said as much publicly my perspective is that the result of these elections undoubtedly reflect the actual balance of power in this country and the fact that the ruling party united russia has lost some of the ground. there is nothing unusual. now listen, we have been for a very difficult crisis period.
look at what is happening in other countries. it's clear that it has made a negative impact on people that the standard of living has dropped and many have lost jobs. so for the opposition to recruit among the ranks and individuals who are unhappy with the current is now considerably easier than it used to be. but then again, the fact that united russia has held onto its lead, that is a very good science. as far as whether or not they were honest or dishonest, the opposition will always point out that the elections were not honest always treated it happens everywhere in all the countries. it's just a matter of how that is expressed and that in itself is a matter of political culture. as far as i'm concerned, it is clear to me that